When Mann first
entered the fray I reminded him of what the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal
in Fraser v UCU (where the lecturers union were accused of 'anti-semitism' for
boycotting Israeli universities) had said:

"We did not
derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us.
Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of
their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the
MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann
could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the
Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did
not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing
differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU
meeting. And when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the
Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but
unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both
parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with
the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking."

When I first wrote to him and accused him of being a Zionist, he wrote back saying I was being racist/anti-Semitic. Clearly he doesn't understand any difference between Zionism and anti-Semitism.